Poly is making me right wing

[Ben Kenobi]

What the **** does it matter WHAT Hoover was?!

It matters a great deal. 'classical liberals' support some things like imperialism that conservatives in general do not. "Spreading democracy et al, was the purpose of Wilson, which is why in the US it's called Wilson's doctrine.

Why are you deflecting the real issue yet again?

The point is that MLK is a conservative. He would be considered a conservative today. He rejected Malcolm X, and he believed that the political process could acheive equality. He was a Christian who supported traditional marriage and opposed abortion. I don't know why you are calling him a socialist, he would have opposed the term.

His values are identical to Gladstone, in both the social realm and the spiritual.

Regardless of Hoover's political beliefs, he considered MLK to be far on the left. So did, FWIW, Attorney General Robert Kennedy.

Yes, because MLK was to the left of him on some issues. Classical liberals tend to be more to the right on economic issues, which is why he called MLK a 'socialist'. The same way that Aggie is calling us all hardcore fascist.

Btw, I hope you do realize that Gladstone was the head of the Liberal party while Disraeli was head of the Conservatives.

I hope you are aware that Gladstone and Disraeli were both in the same party. The conservatives split, and Disreali took the rump of the party, whereas Gladstone took the larger portion.

Sure seems like Gladstone was the classic liberal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladstonian_Liberalism

So all you know of him is through wikipedia? The man was a staunch conservative. Disraeli was the classical liberal, believing that liberalism ought to be spread around the world. Gladstone opposed. It's labelled liberalism, but that's because everyone who people like is a liberal, and everyone they dislike is a conservative, irrespective of their political background.

The 'liberal party' in the UK would split again later after Gladstone was gone, since the coalition wasn't stable.

[Ben Kenobi]

They aren't better, so they shouldn't make more money. That's the kind of common sense that is in everyone's subconscious.

If they aren't better why are you envious? Clearly you believe that people who make more money then you are better then you, otherwise you wouldn't be envious.

If it truly didn't matter, you would be happy that they were doing well and being successfuly.

I really don't give a fig if someone makes 200k or makes 4k, they are still the same people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It matters a great deal. 'classical liberals' support some things like imperialism that conservatives in general do not. "Spreading democracy et al, was the purpose of Wilson, which is why in the US it's called Wilson's doctrine.

No, its a complete non sequiter. We are talking about how people saw Dr. King. I'm thinking the head of the intelligence bureau's views on him are quite significant.

And yes, conservatives have no problem with imperialism. Unless you believe that the US had no conservatives for most of its history.

The point is that MLK is a conservative. He would be considered a conservative today. He rejected Malcolm X, and he believed that the political process could acheive equality. He was a Christian who supported traditional marriage and opposed abortion. I don't know why you are calling him a socialist, he would have opposed the term.

MLK would most definitely not be called a conservative today. Hell he was more liberal than Obama back in the 60s! He believed the political process could achieve equality as Democratic Socialists Europe over believe the same (they even run for and win office!). He supported traditional marriage and opposed abortion, but was for far more governmental intervention in making people equal. He supported reparations for blacks as the only way to put them on equal footing. He organized a crusade across the country for the poor, regardless of race.

Socialism is an economic policy and he was for more government intervention.

Hell, in the quote I linked he even said that he though America may need democratic socialism.

His values are identical to Gladstone, in both the social realm and the spiritual.

And in the economic.....

Thought so.

Classical liberals tend to be more to the right on economic issues, which is why he called MLK a 'socialist'.

Because Dr. King HAD socialist viewpoints. He wanted more government intervention to benefit the poor. That is in no way conservative.

I hope you are aware that Gladstone and Disraeli were both in the same party. The conservatives split, and Disreali took the rump of the party, whereas Gladstone took the larger portion.

Indeed, Gladstone took the classic liberals and became the (pay attention now) LIBERAL PARTY.

The man was a staunch conservative.

Who believed in limited government and low taxes with free trade. Those are classic liberal ideas... Adam Smith couldn't have been more liberal.

And at least I OFFER backing for my statements, from wikipedia in this instance, where you offer none and just bleat your pronouncements, thinking they'll just be accepted without any fact checking. Not here.

who people like is a liberal, and everyone they dislike is a conservative, irrespective of their political background.

Seriously, you've gone nuts.

The 'liberal party' in the UK would split again later after Gladstone was gone, since the coalition wasn't stable.

Yes, classic liberals like Gladstone weren't a part of the more leftward shift.

[Ben Kenobi]

Also I find it amusing that people who claim to follow Jesus and capitalism. Jesus appears to me to a be a socialist thinker and the natural Christian state should be a socialist one, where the poor are cared for and not left to die penniless in the street.

So Carnegie was a socialist? Wealth and charity are not mutually exclusive. Dragging everyone down to the same level just makes everybody poor.

That's the thing about capitalism, yes some people will make more then others. You have three choices. One, you can be bitter and envious and never be content, two, you can take it as a challenge and improve yourself, or three, you can just enjoy whatever it is you do, and live your own life without worrying about what other people are making. That is way better then levelling everyone off. It just doesn't work.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If they aren't better why are you envious? Clearly you believe that people who make more money then you are better then you, otherwise you wouldn't be envious.

If it truly didn't matter, you would be happy that they were doing well and being successfuly.

I really don't give a fig if someone makes 200k or makes 4k, they are still the same people.

What does enviousness have to do with fairness? He could be seeing people struggling and homeless and wonder why people are allowed to accumulate such wealth while those people suffer... while he is happy in his situation.

Yes, they are still the same people, but someone may see that and wonder why the lowest rung of society is treated so damned poorly.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, its a complete non sequiter. We are talking about how people saw Dr. King. I'm thinking the head of the intelligence bureau's views on him are quite significant.

I agree, but it doesn't mean that assessment of King is correct. Where is the evidence that Dr. King was a socialist other then the fact that he was a Christian? You've done nothing to back that up.

And yes, conservatives have no problem with imperialism. Unless you believe that the US had no conservatives for most of its history.

No, I don't believe they have. Manifest Destiny was a liberal idea. So is nationalism. I know this is difficult for you Imran, but the republicans aren't really conservative. It was a very, very liberal idea to form a government without a king, and the way they set things up was very much along those lines.

The idea that a universal state should be formed along nationalities, again was an idea backed up by Wilson and his 14 points. It's a hallmark of classical liberals. I think the US has had many classical liberals over the years, and a few conservatives, and a few statists. Otherwise, you have to call folks like Teddy Roosevelt "conservatives".

MLK would most definitely not be called a conservative today. Hell he was more liberal than Obama back in the 60s! He believed the political process could achieve equality

Rather then revolution.

as Democratic Socialists Europe over believe the same (they even run for and win office!). He supported traditional marriage and opposed abortion,

So how on earth is he more liberal then Obama?

but was for far more governmental intervention in making people equal. He supported reparations for blacks as the only way to put them on equal footing. He organized a crusade across the country for the poor, regardless of race.

Ok, fair enough. How does that oppose him to conservatives who support more government interventions in social causes?

Socialism is an economic policy and he was for more government intervention.

Yes, it is but it also rejects supernatural intervention, because it is JUST an economy theory. This is why MLK was not and could not be a socialist. Conservatives are not as hard on this as Libertarians are, not by a long shot.

And in the economic.....

Both supported government intervention in social causes. I don't see much difference between the two.

Because Dr. King HAD socialist viewpoints. He wanted more government intervention to benefit the poor. That is in no way conservative.

That's not a classical liberal perspective, for sure. Or a libertarian. Don't get your terms confused. Conservatives have generally supported government funding for social causes.

Indeed, Gladstone took the classic liberals and became the (pay attention now) LIBERAL PARTY.

After being a member of the CONSERVATIVE PARTY. He was in both. You have to examine the policies.

Who believed in limited government and low taxes with free trade. Those are classic liberal ideas... Adam Smith couldn't have been more liberal.

The man supported government funding for the churches, etc to help the poor and whatnot.

And at least I OFFER backing for my statements, from wikipedia in this instance, where you offer none and just bleat your pronouncements, thinking they'll just be accepted without any fact checking. Not here.

So if I edit that article you'd accept that as a scholarly publication? If you want to get in a source war, I'll be happy too. Just don't cite wikipedia. How do I know that page is the same one you read?

Yes, classic liberals like Gladstone weren't a part of the more leftward shift.

Nope, Disraeli was. It's a confusing period yes, but that's just because of all the political upheaval. Gladstone was the old order, Disraeli was of the new.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I agree, but it doesn't mean that assessment of King is correct. Where is the evidence that Dr. King was a socialist other then the fact that he was a Christian? You've done nothing to back that up.

The fact that he spoke about Democratic Socialism? That he started the Poor People's Crusade? That he was a friend of unions? That he believed in the government engaging in massive help for the poor and lower classes?

No, I don't believe they have. Manifest Destiny was a liberal idea. So is nationalism. I know this is difficult for you Imran, but the republicans aren't really conservative.

I think I'm starting to understand Agathon's contention that conservatives don't have a real ideology. For someone to assert the Republicans aren't conservative... wow.

It was a very, very liberal idea to form a government without a king, and the way they set things up was very much along those lines.

Yes, that it was. But conservatism tries to preserves the traditions, which includes the way the government was set up. Unless you are saying that true Conservatives should demand monarchy?

The idea that a universal state should be formed along nationalities, again was an idea backed up by Wilson and his 14 points. It's a hallmark of classical liberals. I think the US has had many classical liberals over the years, and a few conservatives, and a few statists. Otherwise, you have to call folks like Teddy Roosevelt "conservatives".

No, you really don't. Roosevelt (Theodore) shook up the conservative business culture by focusing on anti-trust. He also engaged in building up America's military. I think its hard to put Roosevelt in any category, though he did consider himself a progressive.

Rather then revolution.

DEMOCRATIC socialism (it's right in the name Ben)

So how on earth is he more liberal then Obama?

I don't think I've ever heard Obama call for reparations for blacks and want such social programs like Dr. King. Dr. King said the War on Poverty was one of his big goals after the Civil Rights Act was signed.

Ok, fair enough. How does that oppose him to conservatives who support more government interventions in social causes?

How does that oppose him to liberals who support more government interventions in moral causes (helping out the poor through welfare)?

Conservatives have generally supported government funding for social causes.

Not for lifting up the poor. That's for "charity", remember?

After being a member of the CONSERVATIVE PARTY. He was in both. You have to examine the policies.

Yes, and Ronald Reagan was originally a Democrat. Does that make him a liberal?

The policy of the Liberal Party Gladstone STARTED was that of an Adam Smith classic liberalism.

So if I edit that article you'd accept that as a scholarly publication? If you want to get in a source war, I'll be happy too. Just don't cite wikipedia. How do I know that page is the same one you read?

Still no sources denying the underlying facts of the article.

I realize this is your standard debating technique, but its a bit like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Show its wrong. Don't argue about it without anything backing you up. Show its wrong.

Gladstone was the old order

Of classic liberalism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If they aren't better why are you envious? Clearly you believe that people who make more money then you are better then you, otherwise you wouldn't be envious.

If it truly didn't matter, you would be happy that they were doing well and being successfuly.

I really don't give a fig if someone makes 200k or makes 4k, they are still the same people.

I'm not envious. I oppose the belief of inequality because I think it's immoral. I don't like living in a ****ed up society where people talk as if they think people are equal but subconsciously believe they are unequal.

I hate insanity!

[Ben Kenobi]

The fact that he spoke about Democratic Socialism? That he started the Poor People's Crusade? That he was a friend of unions? That he believed in the government engaging in massive help for the poor and lower classes?

Ok, that's better evidence.

I think I'm starting to understand Agathon's contention that conservatives don't have a real ideology. For someone to assert the Republicans aren't conservative... wow.

They aren't. Your whole republic was modelled on the French Revolution. That was the whole concept. They might be considered at best classical liberals.

Yes, that it was. But conservatism tries to preserves the traditions, which includes the way the government was set up. Unless you are saying that true Conservatives should demand monarchy?

Which is why American conservatives defend the constitution and the current system of government, over those who wish to change things. That doesn't make the idea of a republic to be a conservative idea, or a constitution.

I would argue, given American traditions up until then, that the model would be the commonwealth. A nation based on a variety of peoples living together in one state. The UK I would have considered one because they don't have a written constitution.

No, you really don't. Roosevelt (Theodore) shook up the conservative business culture by focusing on anti-trust. He also engaged in building up America's military. I think its hard to put Roosevelt in any category, though he did consider himself a progressive.

I think he was very progressive. I would agree with you there. The reaction to him in the republicans pushed them back to their more conservative roots in the Coolidge years. Much less focussed on expansion. I don't think Teddy was a statist like FDR, but he was a classical liberal, in favouring liberalising trade and manifest destiny.

DEMOCRATIC socialism (it's right in the name Ben)

There are many 'democratic in name only' nations. Just because it says democratic doesn't mean it's actually so. It's like 'lite' doesn't always mean fewer calories.

I don't think I've ever heard Obama call for reparations for blacks and want such social programs like Dr. King. Dr. King said the War on Poverty was one of his big goals after the Civil Rights Act was signed.

I think Obama's social policies are far, far more liberal.

How does that oppose him to liberals who support more government interventions in moral causes (helping out the poor through welfare)?

It matters how they fund things. I doubt any statist would favour paying the churches directly as Gladstone did.

Not for lifting up the poor. That's for "charity", remember?

Funding churches to do so? Yes, I would say they do.

Yes, and Ronald Reagan was originally a Democrat. Does that make him a liberal?

He said the party left him. Much in the same way it did Gladstone.

The policy of the Liberal Party Gladstone STARTED was that of an Adam Smith classic liberalism.

Then why government funding for the churches? He resigned over the issue when the funding was decline. He was put up in Oxford so that the liberals would keep him tied up, and when he got a rural seat he felt liberated.

Of classic liberalism.

So what does that make Disraeli? Disraeli was far more liberal then Gladstone.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not envious. I oppose inequality because I think it's immoral.

Wow!

So it's immoral for people to make more money then someone else? Wow. If I work 4 hours and you work 8, I should think you would expect to make more then me.

Inequality!= Poverty.

I don't like living in a ****ed up society where people talk as if they think people are equal but subconsciously believe they are unequal.

Dude, if you think people are subconsciously looking down on you because you are poor, you need therapy. Seriously. That's paranoia.

[MOBIUS]

Poly makes me laugh...

Here we have a forum of supposedly 'intelligent' people, and I have to admit that most everyone here is above average intelligence, but those of you on the right wing generally act like some of the dumbest ****s I'm ever likely to meet...

I mean, generally, you're constantly wrong all the time about things like the Iraq war, the Middle East in general, Guantanamo, Global Warming, God etc, etc, etc ad nauseum...

But that's not actually the funniest thing - the funniest thing is how you're all pathologically unable to admit you're wrong when you are, so colossally and so repeatedly...

Actually, if anything, my experience of posters here is that generally the smarter ones tend to drift evermore left from their right wing views over time. Which is quite heartening.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your whole republic was modelled on the French Revolution. That was the whole concept. They might be considered at best classical liberals.

So there have not been any conservatives as President ever?

I'd imagine once there was an American tradition to preserve, those who did so where the Conservatives.

I don't think Teddy was a statist like FDR, but he was a classical liberal, in favouring liberalising trade and manifest destiny.

How is manifest destiny a "classical liberal" position when the greatest classical liberal in American history, Thomas Jefferson, did not believe in it (and before you say "Louisiana Purchase", Jefferson never believed it was an ideological idea to physically expand the country... it was just an example of great pragmatism... something more associated with his friend John Adams than him actually).

There are many 'democratic in name only' nations.

Yet Democratic Socialist parties are not "democratic in name only".

I think Obama's social policies are far, far more liberal.

And Dr. King's economic policies are far more liberal.

I doubt any statist would favour paying the churches directly as Gladstone did.

So you are saying Gladstone was showing himself to be more of a liberal than a statist?

He said the party left him. Much in the same way it did Gladstone.

Which was... of course... bull****. The party, if anything, got less liberal from the time Reagan was a Democrat. I mean, compare FDR to JFK.

Then why government funding for the churches? He resigned over the issue when the funding was decline. He was put up in Oxford so that the liberals would keep him tied up, and when he got a rural seat he felt liberated.

I am not very familiar with the government funding for churches issue... and Googling it, apparently it isn't considered all that important. Though I would imagine with an official church (Anglican), money does have to go to the church.


Btw, you don't like wikipedia... so what about the UK Encarta?

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554577/Gladstone_William_Ewart.html

Gladstone's importance rests in part on his reforms, which attempted to free the individual from all unnecessary restrictions—a fundamental belief of 19th-century liberalism. More than any other statesman of his age, he was able to mobilize the idealism of the British public. He succeeded in part because of his strong religious convictions. A daily reader of the Bible and the author of numerous books on religion, he believed that, through politics, religion could be reflected and made practical.

Despite Gladstone's many achievements and his idealism, most historians today argue that he never really understood the needs and aspirations of the lower classes. His insistence on economy in government, his distrust of imperialism and foreign adventure, his hatred of socialism, and his disbelief in the ability of government to solve social problems made him reluctant to accept the implications of democracy. Gladstone remains what he always was—the greatest liberal of the Victorian Age.

As for Disraeli

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575700/Disraeli_Benjamin_1st_Earl_of_Beaconsfield.html

Despite his long public life, Disraeli is still regarded as an enigma. His multitude of enemies regarded him as an opportunist and a seeker of power; his legions of followers (some of whom founded the Primrose League in his memory) saw him as a man of high principle. These opposing views probably resulted from the contradictions inherent in his public acts. He was at once a Conservative and a Radical, and perhaps embodied the best of both traditions.

(probably because Disraeli wanted a Conservative-working class alliance against the merchant classes who the Liberals, including Gladstone, appealed to)

As for the Primrose League... by his followers:

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781529360/Primrose_League.html

This concept involved the defence of traditional elements of British life, and the desire to widen support for the Conservative Party by demonstrating its ability to improve the living and working conditions of the masses.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why would conservatives oppose the emancipation of women? They've been at the forefront of every major social change.

The second statement is true, but only because they've been in front of every major social change, fighting to keep it back. It's the left that lead the way forward.

[MOBIUS]

Ben Kenobi is a major case in point, wrt my theory...

[chequita guevara]

Ben, do you even make a pretense of trying to be accurate anymore?